Jul 13, 2014
Acts 8:1-4
Download Audio:
Outline:
The death of Stephen signifies two dramatic shifts:
1. We see a general shift in God’s plan for the ages.
Starting in Genesis 12 and continuing all the way through Acts 7 God’s work in the world centered almost exclusively on the Hebrew people.
By design God had called and separate the descendants of Abraham out from the world so that they might be a light of revelation onto the world.
And yet, not only had they failed to fulfill this particular calling, but, as we discussed last Sunday, the rejection of the Holy Spirit’s revelation through the ministry of Stephen marked an important transition for the nation of Israel…
Beginning with Acts 8 the entire narrative of the Bible will dramatically shift away from God’s dealings with the Hebrew people and focus instead on the rest of the unbelieving world. It will not be until 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7 that we see any further revelation extended to the nation of Israel.
You see in a very real sense Stephen’s death triggered a prophetic pause in God’s plan for Israel (Daniel 9) and initiated what we would refer to as the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) or the church age.
Please realize… Where the Hebrew people had failed to be God’s instrument of revelation unto the world, Jesus would fulfill this calling through His church by the power of the Holy Spirit unto the entire world.
Acts documents the fulfillment of this… Following the flood in Genesis 10 we find all of humanity descending from one of Noah’s three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
At this point in our travels through Acts the Gospel has reached the descendants of “Shem” or the “Semitic people” represented by these Hebrew believers.
By the end of Acts 8 the Gospel will have been extended to the descendants of “Ham” or the “Hamitic people” represented by the Ethiopian eunuch.
Then in Acts 10 the Gospel will finally be extended to the descendants of “Japheth” or the “Japhetic people” represented by the Roman Cornelius.
2. We see a specific shift in the way the Jewish leaders would handle Christians.
In Acts 5 following Peter and John’s second appearance before the Sanhedrin we’re told that while some in the council “plotted to kill them, one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people… And he said to them… Keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it lest you even be found to fight against God.”
Gamaliel reasoned that if what was happening was “a work of men” there was no need to oppose it for it would simply die a natural death. However, he also cautioned against aggressive action for if it was taking place was indeed “a work of God” there was nothing any of them could do to stop it.
And while this seemed to be the policy of these religious leaders for approximately the first 3 years of the churches existence, Acts 7 and the death of Stephen marks a dramatic shift away from this particular policy.
No longer would a passive approach be taken towards the followers of Jesus. Instead, an active and violent campaign to suppress this new movement would ensue. Ironically, this campaign would be led by one of Gamaliel’s most promising students… A man named Saul.
Though we’ll spend more time developing a more extensive profile of Saul when we get to Acts 9, it’s important to point out what we know thus far.
1. Saul was not only a member of this “Synagogue of the Freedmen,” but it seems that he had been directly responsibly for the plight of Stephen.
Since Luke points out that he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58), it is likely that Saul actively recruited these false witnesses, set up this kangaroo court, and instigated Stephen’s illegal execution.
2. Because of Saul’s obvious involvement, Stephen’s accusation that these religious leaders were “stiff-necked, uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the Holy Spirit” was as applicable to Saul as it was to anyone else.
Saul had been “cut to the heart” by the message of Stephen. He knew what Stephen had said was true and his conscience bore witness to this reality.
And yet, instead of repentance, Saul was filled with indignation and hatred. He “gnashed at Stephen with his teeth” and according to Acts 8:1 “he was consenting to his death.” Note: Included in the previous chapter of the Latin Vulgate.
In the Greek this word “consenting” means “to be pleased with, to actively support, to applaud.” Saul not only approved the execution of Stephen, but in some weird and twisted way he actually took pleasure in this innocent man’s death.
It would now seem that while initially an instigator Saul had quickly become an active participator. Scottish preacher William Arnot said concerning Saul, “The tiger had tasted blood, and now the creature thirst more fiercely for another victim.”
Acts 8:1-4, “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison. Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.”
Luke tell us that following the death of Stephen and this shift in policy towards Christians “a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem.” Note: This is the first time any of these Christians had faced such an opposition.
While the language indicates a more systematic persecution than what could have been spearheaded by just one man, Luke’s narrative centers upon the activities of Saul.
He tells us Saul “made havoc of the church…” The Greek word for “havoc” can refer to a wild animal tearing into its prey or an attacking army devastating the enemy.
The verb tense indicates this was his ongoing activity. As a maddened animal Saul kept on making “havoc of the church” by forcibly “entering every house dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.” Note: The phraseology signifies he was dragging them before the magistrates, or dragging them to justice.
In recounting this period of his life Paul tells us in Acts 22 & 26 that he “was zealous toward God” and “thought he must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Which he provides as the explanation for why he “persecuted this Way… binding and delivering into prisons both men and women… and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.”
Decades later Paul still deeply regretted what he did… 1 Corinthians 15:9-10, “For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am…”
On the surface it would be easy to explain Saul’s persecution of Christians as simply being another example of the unintended consequences of religious zealotry.
As we even read Saul claimed these actions were spawned by a “zealousness toward God” and a deep conviction that “he must do things contrary to the name of Jesus.”
Let’s be honest Saul would not have been the first person nor would he be the last to use God to justify thuggish behavior. It’s simply a reality that a lot of the violence we see in our world today can be directly attributed to a sincere belief based upon a religious worldview.
And yet, this is what makes our story a bit more complicated… Can you really say Saul was a sincere religious fanatic convinced he was doing God’s bidding when in the lead up to this story we’ve already been told Saul had been “cut to the heart” and was actively “resisting the Holy Spirit” before he ever engaged in such behavior?
While Saul might have acted in the name of religion, he presents a much more dangerous form of fanaticism… He was acting in opposition to his conscience as opposed to one seeking to defend his convictions! Rejecting truth will drive a man mad!
Once again William Arnot makes an interesting observation, “Conviction goes before conversion; but conversion does not always follow conviction. When such a home-thrust takes effect on the conscience, a great anger is generated. That anger burns like fire, and it must have some object to consume. It will either burn inward to consume your sins, or outward to persecute the preacher who exposed them.”
If Saul was acting against what he knew to be true, why does he still claim to be acting in a perceived “zealousness toward God?” Answer: A prideful resistance of truth always demands a zealous defense of a false truth!
Think about it this way… What do you do when you know you’ve lost an argument with your wife? If you’re like me you either humble yourself and concede defeat or you double down and defend your failed position with even more of a zealous fervor!
Isn’t it true when pride (the inability to admit I’m wrong) causes me to double down instead of giving up I end up being a condescending, belligerent jerk in the process?
While one Bible teacher commented “the reaction of Saul was not in line with what was happening in his heart” I would have to respectfully disagree. Because Saul had been hit with a reality he refused to accept, this visceral reaction was completely consistent.
There is an old proverb that rings true to what we see happening in the heart of Saul, “If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the one who got hit screams the loudest.”
Before we move on there are two important lessons we should consider:
1. When God cuts you to the heart how will you respond?
Will you humble yourself and repent or will you bristle up and lash out? It’s simply a reality that a person’s reaction to rebuke, personal correction, or even the general proclamation of the truth of God’s Word are important indicators as to what’s really happening deep within that person’s soul.
Let me be brutally honest… Over the years I have learned that the times I am the most defensive, become the most abrasive, or act the most combative are often the very times I am being most resistant to a work God is trying to do in my life.
2. A surface evaluation doesn’t always reveal the deeper workings.
Once again… In the moment it would have been very difficult to see any redeeming value in the great sacrifice made by Stephen. Not only had no one converted, but now you had Saul making havoc of the church! Talk about a strategy backfiring!
And yet things were not as they seem… Though Saul was doing everything in his power to resist, we know God was working way below the surface. While it would be about a year later that Saul would have a destiny altering appointment with Jesus, the narrative of Acts is clear that God’s work in Saul’s life began with Stephen.
The words he spoke, the life he lived, and the way in which he died was something Saul would never be able to escape. Is it a surprise that every sermon of Paul recorded in Acts plagiarizes Stephen and virtually every doctrinal concept Paul develops in his Epistles find its origin in this one sermon Stephen taught.
If Stephen laid down his life for the sole purpose of seeing Saul come to a saving faith, with the benefits of hindsight, we’d all say it was worth it! In Mark 1:17, Jesus said, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And while Stephen may have only caught one… It proved to be a doozy!
Never underestimate the potential impact the life you’re seeking to impact might make for the kingdom of God. And if you’re currently witnessing to a person and things aren’t going swimmingly… Take heart! You have no idea what God might be doing deep below the surface.
Before we get back to our text we should remember that our author Luke is writing the book of Acts as a historical defense brief in order to explain to Theophilus (the Roman official overseeing Paul’s trial) how the Christian faith, which began in Jerusalem, had spread so quickly throughout the Roman world, as well as the role Paul had played in the process.
From a strategic, legal perspective the first 4 verses of this chapter which document a less that stellar period of Paul’s life were include by Luke so that he could (A) later emphasize the incredible transformation that followed his conversion, and (B) provide further explanations as to why Paul ended up being so committed to the cause of Christ.
These verses are also designed to explain why the Christian faith made it’s initial migration out of Jerusalem. Luke is clear that it was because of religious persecution “they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.” Once again this subtle point would substantiate the larger reality that Christianity was not a threat to the empire.
In Acts 1 Jesus had prophesied that His followers would “be witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” “Although their steps were directed by events beyond their control, they were exactly fulfilling the Master’s commission.”
If you were to divide what we’d consider “Israel proper” into sections you would have three regions all wedged east of the Mediterranean and west of the Jordan river valley which extended south from the Sea of Galilee in the north to the Dead Sea in the south.
Judea was the southernmost region (which contained Jerusalem).
Samaria was the middle region (home to the Samaritans and is today the West Bank).
Galilee was the northernmost region (obviously centered around the Sea of Galilee).
Beyond Judea and Samaria Act 11:19 tells us “now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia (north of Galilee), Cyprus (island east of Phoenicia), and Antioch (north of Phoenicia)…”
This detail “except the apostles” is interesting and has produced two explanations: (1) The Apostles stayed because of their bravery! Or (2) The more likely explanation… Since the persecution began with Stephen and the one example given of a “scattered” believer was Philip it may be that this first wave of persecution was aimed at Hellenistic Jews.
This phrase “scattered” is also worthy of consideration. In the Greek there are two words translated into English as scattered: one described a scattering for dissipation (accidental loss) while the other a scattering for distribution (intentional purpose).
While there is no doubt Saul’s intention was to disrupt and slow the spread of Christianity, this word “scattered” means God directly used this “great persecution” to intentionally distribute His people into new territories. The result… “Those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.”
In Acts 2 a fire was ignited in the lives of those filled with the power of the Holy Spirit and over the course of the last 3 years this flame had nearly engulfed Jerusalem. And while Saul recognized the threat this was to Judaism, his approach couldn’t have been worse. In his attempt to beat out the fire all he succeeded at doing was introducing more fuel. It is clear from our text is that God used this persecution to move these believers out of Jerusalem and into the rest of the world with the good news of the Gospel.
Albert Barnes, “Good thus came out of evil; and the first persecution resulted, as all others have done, in advancing the cause which was intended to be destroyed.”
Adam Clarke, “Thus the very means devised by Satan to destroy the Church became the very instruments of its diffusion and establishment.”
Every pastor I listened to speculates that the reason God allowed this persecution was to directly spur these believers in Jerusalem out of their comfort. Several even described them as “reluctant missionaries” being forced to do something they had been reluctant to do.
And while it is true that God can use persecution to force apathetic Christians into greater areas of faith (sometimes things need to be stirred up), never once did anyone provide a Biblical justification for this particular position. Within the first 7 chapters of Acts has Luke ever once alluded to the reality these early Christians had grown complacent?
Not only is there this inconsistency, but we should consider… Did these believers flee Jerusalem out of fear… Were they saints on the run… Or was something else the motivator behind this mass exodus from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria?
To this point Adam Clarke observers, “Their Lord had commanded them, when persecuted in one city, to flee to another: this they did, but, wherever they went, they proclaimed the same doctrines, though at the risk and hazard of their lives. It is evident, therefore, that they did not flee from persecution, or the death it threatened; but merely in obedience to their Lord‘s command.”
It would seem that this persecution wasn’t a motivation to move out of complacency and into a restored obedience, but was rather an indicator that the time for action was at hand!